Of course, economics has nothing to do with actual data and numbers. You just think up some semi-plausible sounding psychology, apply that to your country and voilà, everybody gets rich. Thanks for that. :up:

Still no data, no statistics, no overall numbers. :yawn:

I better help you out because it's clear now you don't have any numbers or even a vaguely clear idea of what they are.. Excise and sales taxes currently bring in less than 7% of government tax revenue and individual income tax brings in about 50% of tax revenue in the US*. But you think raising sales taxes can turn that less than 7% of revenue into more than the 50% of tax revenue that you would lose by charging zero income tax. And you think just paying an extra 40% on goods like laptops etc would close that gap. Do you realize how hare-brained that is and that you'd actually have to raise sales tax so much and make everything so expensive to theoretically close that gap that in practice no-one would be able to afford the goods and therefore no-one would buy them and sales tax revenue would actually go down if you attempted that?

*https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/

(Saying you have an economic scheme but no numbers behind it is like saying you have a philosophical scheme but no rational basis behind it.)

More hot air. Show us the numbers. Data. Presumably you've calculated all this and are not just making it up as you go along, right? So, show us your calculations.

Therefore the holding of illogical beliefs (despite evidence to the contrary) is a 'fear' based reaction, and as such it is an instinctively (as opposed to a logically) driven behavior. — Marcus de Brun

Sure, but it's often subconscious and easily masked. A lot of human psychology revolves around convincing ourselves that we're being reasonable when we're not. So, how does anyone know who is the true individual and who isn't? Who's the arbiter of that? Logic itself can't answer the question because intellectual disagreements are not a simple matter of logic. Otherwise we could just ask a computer to solve our issues.

No nation has implemented my plan. — raza

The reason why is obvious. But there's no point just asserting. Show us the numbers. Back it up with evidence or it's just more hot air like when you claimed Trump had higher popularity ratings than May in the UK.

You don't have a scheme. You want to give 1.7 trillion* in tax revenues mostly to the rich (because that's where they'd go.) Now show us the numbers how your increased sales tax would more than make up for that.

*Data here: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Under my scheme they would pay the greater tax — raza

No, they wouldn't. They pay about 35% of their income in income tax. There is no way your increased consumer taxes on some goods would more than counterbalance that. You're making stuff up again. Or, if you think it would, provide evidence this time. Show us the numbers.

This sycophantic worship of rich elites by the likes of @raza I really don't get even though Zizek (seeing as Street brought him up) reckons it's Calvinism's fault. To a European, it's insane.

I know, if only we could find a way to stop folks who want to give the working class a better tax deal from oppressing them, we could all live in Trump's dumbtopia. :lol:

So, you're on the side of rich elites because they all create jobs (which is nonsense, business owners and entrepreneurs create jobs, most rich people don't create anything). At least you've stopped pretending now.

I don't believe it works like that, intellectuals' and philosophers' egos are so wrapped up in what they believe they very often find it extremely difficult to be persuaded of the contrary. After all, that could mean their work, sometimes their life's work, is based on falsity. And just look at the sniping that goes on in academia. It''s more about building intellectual walls around your ideas than being open to invasion by others. On the other hand, those who have no particular stake in an idea can often easily be persuaded one way or another.

Let's try again raza. You say you're on the side of the working class so:

How about no income tax for the working class and tax the rich elites more? — Baden

Should be trivially easy to agree with. Take tax dollars the elites have taken from the deficit (and therefore from everyone) and instead let the working class benefit. This would also be good for the economy because the working class tend to spend what they have rather than save. Increased consumer spending leads to increased economic growth. So, unless you were lying about caring more about the working class than the elites, you're a social democrat just like me.

:lol: Your plan is a trillion dollar give away to the rich elites you claim to be against.

How about no income tax for the working class and tax the rich elites more? Why is it so hard to agree to that? Anyone would think you were on their side just like Trump is... Could it be that all your talk of supporting the working class is just empty and you are just as pro-elite as him? :chin:

OK, we'll see. I won't forget this any more than you didn't forget my Hillary prediction. :D

I agree it's disgraceful and anti-democratic if he said that meaning the FBI, but if he was sounding off as we all do sometimes it's not something that requires any further thought. Look, if there is a real conspiracy here, it's likely to be discovered. My bet is there isn't. Let's say I'm 95% on that. I'd put money on it if I could get decent odds. What's your bet. Do you really think the conspiracy is more likely?

equally bad. — Agustino

Hey, you're halfway there. :party: :cheer:



I didn't say it didn't. But haven't you heard anyone ever sound off about something they couldn't follow up with? Saying we'll do this, we'll do that while actually just sounding off because they can't? That never occurred to you? Instead you think the conspiracy theory is more plausible. Really? Common, dude! :)

I'm not going to physically attack you because you keep shilling for Trump. We both benefit by agreeing to allow free speech but not violence against each other. Of course, it could eventually go that way but personally I couldn't imagine the vast majority of citizens of advanced democracies supporting violence because of political disagreements around the relative centre such as we have.

But let's go back to moral character with regard to women because you brought it up. At least tell me this, who seems the worse offender to you, the pussy grabbing, porn star fucking, alleged sexual abuser, Trump or this random FBI agent who cheated on his wife? If you can't answer that honestly you know the reason why we can't persuade each other. Look in the mirror.

Non-sequitur. You focused on moral character specifically adultery. Plus, he said in a personal text, "we" will stop him not specifying "we". And you take that as enough evidence for a conspiracy. It's so laughably ridiculous. I mean it's one word in a private text. Have you even considered that he was just sounding off? Trump on the other hand told Comey to "give Flynn a break". Even Giuliani admitted that in an interview recently. That is asking for corrupt behavior. And he's the President. Don't you think he has more influence than this nobody in the FBI? Again, you're so partisan and hypocritical, it's honestly bizarre.

How absurd. The working class got a tiny tax break, some as little as five dollars a week. The rich got huge amounts, for those earning over a hundred thousand, it amounted to thousands. So, the policy you support rips the working class off. The tax policy I and other social democrats would support would reverse the tax breaks for the rich elites and give the working class more in tax relief. If you were not on the elites side you would support that. So, do you?

@Agustino You must admit your comments are a little bizarre considering your history of support for Trump and your excuses for his despicable behavior towards women. Strzok pales in comparison.

. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, — Agustino

Like Trump. :brow: Have you been drinking?

Yes, but that matters little when he's serving the elites by putting them in his cabinet and giving them massive tax breaks.

Another non-sequitur. People who fix roads may be low class in your view. In mine they're working class. Trump is low class. Learn the difference. And if you think Trump is not the elite, you're deluded.

On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth — Agustino

It took until now to realize that's wrong? You'll stop supporting Trump now I take it.

@raza If you knew anything about the UK you wouldn't even need a poll to know that a low class moron like Trump would have little to no support. Get over it, the sycophancy isn't worth it.

Cross posted. Yes, that's called evidence I believe. So, as I said, it's great news for May that the dumb baboon came after her. Could be the factor that makes the difference.

The full survey is linked as a pdf and the results for the UK are included separately. Now stop making stuff up.

Trump polls well among Britons — raza

Wrong as usual.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-even-more-unpopular-europe-he-us-survey-shows-790700

https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/EZ_eupinions_Brief_Trump_englisch.pdf

Follow the link. Trump's UK approval is about 20%.

Trump did May a huge favor by insulting her and taking the side of a hard Brexit. The British public on the whole, like most of Europe, consider him a despicable baboon. They'll rally around May and her soft Brexit now and generally give him the finger. Great news.

There's always something deeply comical about Trey Gowdy whose false impression of his own intelligence clearly derives exclusively from being around people even stupider than him.

So think about your own experience. Have you ever persuaded someone, on say, TPF, to change their worldview? If yes, how did that happen? And if no, then what does this say about the ability to do philosophy as a society, together? What value does reason then have, if we cannot relate to each other to the extent that we can persuade each other? — Agustino

Have You Ever Persuaded Someone Holding An Opposite Worldview From You On TPF? — Agustino

You probably should disentangle this is a bit. It's not that big a deal to persuade someone holding an opposite worldview to you of something, but change their worldview you will not do (broadly speaking). The other point is that the worldview is inherently political rather than philosophical (for most except those deep in philosophy and especially professional philosophers). Looking at it from the outside, it's effectively a sociocultural interpretation of the personality, and from the inside the value filter that allows us to make the world psychologically coherent and navigable. Most posters here are either old enough or mature enough to have a fairly developed worldview, which is a part of their psychological engine. So, it's all wrapped up not only in a micro-political engagements like we have on here especially when we're talking politics, but also to a lesser extent in everything we do, it's who we are insofar as we are social actors, and social actors are orientated towards making the social sphere in their image either consciously or unconsciously. That's just part of the nature of social reality and the spead of ideas/ideologies within. Given that, worldview clashes are clashes of socially interpretable values that in order to gain expression have already been internally tested against alternatives, and are armoured by their integration into the larger mesh that is the individual espousing them. So though you might, if you're lucky, get someone to modify their worldview in some minor way, which they may not even be aware of themselves or willing to admit to you, it will normally only be in a way that's integrable with some more fundamental part of it.

There are exceptions, but they're much more likely to occur in the real world. I once had a very homophobic Russian student, who, because we already had a good relationship before I found out how homophobic he was, allowed me to be of some influence in changing his views. But he was only 18 and still very much developing a worldview, already got on well with me and respected me, took a long time to change, and all the evidence suggests he would have changed on his own anyway given the environment he had just entered was a liberal British university, which was a dramatic change from where he'd been previously.

Short answer, no.

Now what? — Posty McPostface

The picture is you in the middle of a dark wood surrounded by loud animal calls that translate to "Vote for me!" but all you can see are bright gleaming eyes in the gloom, the source of which you can never fully discern. And that's as good as it gets until there's a forest fire.

I didn't mean you, Posty, I meant from Albright. That was her reaction. (This is also, by the way, a major reason I could not but have absolute contempt for both Clintons.)

Half a million kids dead. Reaction: "Meh". These are the people that run our affairs. I don't think even Trump would have had the stomach to have said that. (Though he did want to invade Venezuela just for the fun of it...)

Madeline Albright has no moral basis on which to claim anything. If anything, she's worse than Trump.

It's a good quote and relevant. My use of the term "concentration camps" is not meant as a direct parallel to Nazi Germany though. As I mentioned before, the British are responsible for bringing us concentration camps and not all involve torture and gas chambers. But Trump's cages can be called concentration camps according to the definition of the term:

"Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

(The reason I think the term "detention centre" is less apt is because of the avowedly punitive intention behind the policy as expressed by Jeff Sessions, for example, on several occasions.)

Let's give Tiff some credit for standing up for someone so disliked on this forum. — Posty McPostface

Tiff deserves credit for sincerely arguing her case, I'll give her that.